Making JavaFX Development Faster

[Tom Eugelink]

About using JavaFX beans server side; can you explain why that would be a bad idea beside the fact that there isn't any support in frames like JDBC?

There has been a big demand from the community for real properties in Java. Now JavaFX has become part of the standard JDK, I expect people to start using these properties in other area's as well. The binding concept is rather powerful and once the concept sinks in... This then would have consequences; some bindings no longer can be lazy, we need bean level listeners, etc. But this can all be added quite easily. Then JDBC and JPA need to be enhanced to support them and we're pretty much done.

Tom


On 2012-10-27 15:55, Tom Schindl wrote:
> If I remember correctly it had to do with listeners and how to manage
> that they are not leaked but I could be wrong.
>
> Anyways nobody guarantees that OpenJFX will run on other vendors JVMs,
> am I right? I generally think using JavaFX-Beans on the server side is a
> bad idea.
>
> Tom
>
> Am 27.10.12 15:24, schrieb Richard Bair:
>> I cannot imagine what internal stuff Michael could be using or when that was added.
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Not only the memory argument is import.
>>>
>>> What if a customer says i have to run on his j9-jvm?
>>>
>>> I can be wrong but IIRC Michael told me at JavaOne that the properties
>>> code is even using internal (sun....) stuff so even simply dropping in
>>> the jar to the j9 classpath is doomed to fail.
>>>
>>> And beside that using FX-Observables and e.g. JPA don't like each other
>>> i guess because of all those lazy list stuff, ... .
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Am 22.10.12 19:23, schrieb Werner Lehmann:
>>>> Richard,
>>>>
>>>> On 22.10.2012 17:38, Richard Bair wrote:
>>>>> MyObject obj = new MyObject();
>>>>> obj = BlackMagic.makeObservable(obj);
>>>> I'd like to see the implementation of BlackMagic ;-)  (cglib stuff?)
>>>>
>>>>> However, the javafx beans package and collections and such are part
>>>>> of the "base" module -- ie: they could be separated from the rest of
>>>>> javafx and safely used on the server side or elsewhere. Why not just
>>>>> use properties and such on the server side definition of classes? Or
>>>>> are those classes being auto-generated and thus not taking observable
>>>>> properties into account?
>>>> Currently I want to avoid requiring customers to install the FX runtime
>>>> serverside. That will be a moot point with JRE 7+. Which does not help
>>>> the 6.x customers, especially if they are on WebLogic which is usually
>>>> tied to a specific major version.
>>>>
>>>> Another aspect is the footprint regarding memory and bandwidth.
>>>> Obviously a StringProperty requires more bytes than a String. This is
>>>> not an issue (usually) when I want to display a relatively short list of
>>>> beans in the UI. It gets noticeable when the server suddenly needs +X
>>>> megabytes, the instantion of objects needs +Y ms (also affects
>>>> deserialization), and sending them over the network takes +Z ms...
>>>>
>>>> Werner
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t                        EDV Systemhaus GmbH
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> tom schindl                 geschäftsführer/CEO
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1   A-6020 innsbruck     fax      ++43 512 935833
>>> http://www.BestSolution.at                      phone    ++43 512 935834
>